nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Congress
As an indicator of the the lack of consciousness concerning social and moral issues, the Jonathan Frum Foundation would like to hand over this book packet to the members of the Lovian Congress. We hope that it will be placed in the Library of Congress or on another important location where you all can see the complaints and issues that keep standing for over a hundred years. That it may help you to make the right decisions. With kind regards, Jonathan Frum. * Brave New World (Aldous Huxley) * Max Havelaar (Eduard Douwes Dekker) * The Great Illusion (Norman Angell) * I'm Only Just A Negro (Jef Geeraerts) * Mother, Why Do We Live? (Lode Zielens) 2003-2006 Should we make up fake names and stuff for those congresses? Marcus Villanova 19:37, July 6, 2010 (UTC) :We could, but we shouldn't make it to hard on ourselves. Make them small Congresses (8-10 MOTC) and let most people return for a year or two. Also, the King should be in all of them. 06:20, July 7, 2010 (UTC) :Sorry i was late with the response, yeah to make it realistic I'll throw in a congress member that was attached to a early party like... I'll do reasearch. Marcus Villanova WLP 18:51, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I'll fetch that sometime :) 18:05, August 5, 2010 (UTC) Starting date I've changed the starting date to 1889. Hope you dont mind Pierlot McCrooke 09:40, December 18, 2010 (UTC) :I do. Congress isn't that old. 09:46, December 18, 2010 (UTC) ::Congrss isnt that young. Maybe 1900 instead? Pierlot McCrooke 10:08, December 18, 2010 (UTC) it already said that until 2003 lovia was more or less a dictator ship with a small body of lord helping the king. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 13:19, December 18, 2010 (UTC) Worst Sjors decision ever Pierlot McCrooke 09:00, April 16, 2015 (UTC) Filling in the gaps I'm working on an ambitious project to fill the gaps of our political history. Within months, I'll provide the complete history of our Congress an other political bodies. You'll just need to be patient for some time :) 09:12, December 27, 2010 (UTC) :Know what you're beginning :P (pointing at my Mäöreser politics project) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:51, December 27, 2010 (UTC) ::It's a good thing Congress only really began in 2003 09:52, December 27, 2010 (UTC) :::Hahaha, unlike the 111 elections of Mäöres :P I always knew Mäöres was way ahead of time and that's of course because we've always had SGP-alike parties in charge --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:54, December 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::Never knew Lovia used to be an absolute monarchy! Well, it does makes things easier for you, yes. Pierius Magnus 09:54, December 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::Not really absolute, but yeah, sort of. Nominally, it was pretty absolute, de facto it was more or less ruled by councils and advisers and stuff. 10:04, December 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Currently we dont know who was the PM before Medvedev. It is good that Dimi is working on that Pierlot McCrooke 10:03, December 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::::That's indeed one of the things I'll fix 10:04, December 27, 2010 (UTC) Timeline Love it, nice work! Cristian Latin 11:29, December 28, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks. 19:31, December 28, 2010 (UTC) ::I stiil want to make a fake congress for the 2003 - 2007 Period. We could grow Our wikia that way...Add some names maybe add a party or two. Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 19:43, December 28, 2010 (UTC) :::See the previous title . I'm working on it! Soon more news! 19:52, December 28, 2010 (UTC) I think I need a brain check or an another eye check-up...I see. Thnx Marcus Villanova Music is Life.Lean Forward.Walden 20:02, December 28, 2010 (UTC) I've a good name for his predecessr: Christopher McDonald Pierlot McCrooke 21:01, December 28, 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't the congress men on the timeline of this congress also be in January 2010? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:12, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :How so? 19:32, December 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Because they elections are in February. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:34, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :::Are you trying to say the current MOTCs on the timeline should have begun in January 2010 instead of February 2010? 19:35, December 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::No, I meant January 2011. Mijn fout :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:37, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::Ah, ok. Well yes of course, the timeline only goes as far as the current date. So next week, I move the timeline "current date" one week 19:38, December 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Are you going to that every week? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:39, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I'm sure you'll ask me to update it every week 19:42, December 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I'm not so sure about that, my memory is one big zeef :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:43, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Haha . Are you sure you're still looking for a university then? ;) 19:44, December 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::Hahaha :P There's nothing to be sure about, except for that there is a God whom you should obey :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:48, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::Ah yes . The Great Big Certainty in Life 19:52, December 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::::Indeed :P God for wisedom and alcohol for pleasure :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 19:54, December 30, 2010 (UTC) You shouldnt forget before 2007 there was a different constutuion Pierlot McCrooke 19:53, December 30, 2010 (UTC) :Holy pepperoni, I forgot! Thanks for reminding me Pierlot, but I did remember that ^^ 19:56, December 30, 2010 (UTC) Nice work king! 13:55, December 31, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks :) 10:45, January 1, 2011 (UTC) Resort Island I was wondering if I could own all land of Isle of London to turn into a resort excluding people's homes. Noble City has enough people so lots of people could live in the resort settlement. Dave :You can't, it's a National Park. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:12, October 19, 2012 (UTC) Coalition? Since when did we formt hat "government coalition?" Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:41, September 8, 2013 (UTC) :When we agreed on the Ministers, all parties that have ministerial positions, including the speaker are technically Government parties. It's less of a concentrated coalition and more of a coalition simply to govern. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 06:19, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :I don't think that would count as a coalition, as f.e. the small Christian parties would support CCPL (and KNPO would support CNP, PNO would support UL etc.) and would be in the coalition. 77topaz (talk) 07:32, September 9, 2013 (UTC) ::That's why its not really a coalition but it is, simply because we all voted to put certain people in government and those people happen to be members of the parties that are now considered government parties. It's not a unified coalition, simply one to ensure that we actually have people in ministerial positions and such. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 07:49, September 9, 2013 (UTC) You're being technical. We have always agreed there would be no government parties, and there certainly isn't an opposition. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:05, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :Who is this 'we'? There has never been any such agreement. And you should know that opposition simply means "Not in government". You're being difficult once more Time. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 12:34, September 9, 2013 (UTC) ::We is everyone except you. There has been such an agreement since before you joined. Opposition means in opposition to the government, and I believe all of those parties with the possible exception of PL or RTP have never voiced any opposition to the government. I think you're being slightly more difficult. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:48, September 10, 2013 (UTC) :::Then such an agreement no longer applies, especially considering that if it was an agreement before me then it's an agreement before the majority of people here. You can't agree something with Dimitri and then turn around and imply that I, Topaz or Pikapi have agreed to something by saying we. And this: We is everyone except you, as I've proven by the statement above we is actually aptly described as Time et none. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 06:01, September 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::That's not correct. We is everyone except you. :3 The agreement was also made with Yuri, Horton, Marcus, Oos, TMV, and Semyon. I think that's about half of the active users. :P —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:02, September 10, 2013 (UTC) Technically, we agreed not to form a coalition; we did agree on forming a government (of course). However, the parties in the Government, could be correctly labelled by the term government party/participant. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:22, September 9, 2013 (UTC) I think a reasonable solution would be to categorise them as 'Government parties' and 'Other parties.' The latter's more accurate than 'opposition,' as no-one explicitly stated themselves to be opposed to the government other than Pikapi when he voted against the bill. --Semyon 15:30, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :True, I'll make that change. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 15:45, September 9, 2013 (UTC) :That will be sufficient, but we still need a map of the correct style by economic viewpoint, not by size of party. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:43, September 10, 2013 (UTC) ::Excellent, Semyon already uploaded a correct version. It's been added to the infobox. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:45, September 10, 2013 (UTC) :::That isn't a correct version though technically and you're being really bullminded if you think that works in an infobox. Also, as much as I love semyons, it does not place them in economic viewpoint at all, unless you're suggesting that PL is middle ground on economics or that CCPL has a more rightist policy than the CNP. Until I hear from someone else that economic viewpoint is the correct alignment then it shall remain as it is. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 06:01, September 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::I was oversimplifying. That graph goes from leftist to liberal to conservative. Anyway, that is the way we've been seating since 2011. We don't sit by seat number. I am adding a vote below. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:01, September 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::Oh, and it is the correct version. It works fine in an infobox, though I suppose if you wanted to get rid of the labels that would be fine. The arrangement, correct in Semyon's, is the main issue. The current one (I have decided not to revert) is simply wrong. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:04, September 10, 2013 (UTC) :::::No it doesn't, it doesn't relate to the key and has too much detail. I love having it on the Congress pages because it's large enough for its detail to be of use but on here, no. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:44, September 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::::I think that the way I've arranged it, while not perfect, is about as good as is possible considering the flawed nature of the left-right axis. While I'd rather have a single chart, with one seating arrangement, I'm ok with using Kunarian's for this page because mine looks meaningless in such a small space. --Semyon 11:46, September 10, 2013 (UTC) *Use Semyon's Seat Chart **—TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:01, September 10, 2013 (UTC) **... **... *Use Kunarian's Seat Chart **... **... I'll not humour you on this. Unless other people decide this is worth some petty vote I cannot see a reason to. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:44, September 10, 2013 (UTC) :Perhaps I should revert the edit again? Or shall we see what the community really wants? I'm convinced that we should use the economic viewpoint graph because that what we've always used. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:13, September 10, 2013 (UTC) :Also, I fail to see the pettiness. It's a neutral vote. :/ —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:21, September 10, 2013 (UTC) Semyon's graph (minus labels) has been added to the page. I'll see what I can do about the key. We have too much blue and red and not enough of the other colors. To fix this, CCPL has been changed to its secondary color, teal (as on the graph). We could also change CDP to orange and make a few other changes too. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:26, September 10, 2013 (UTC) :I shall have to disagree again. Also you cannot change the key, those are the actual colours of the party, not some arbitrary thing I've chosen. I think that it has been stated enough that it does not need to change. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 21:48, September 10, 2013 (UTC) ::I'm aware. The new colors are the colors of the graph. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:04, September 10, 2013 (UTC) :::Then clearly my colours are correct as I have reverted the graph to it's right form. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 22:10, September 10, 2013 (UTC) :::::I'll agree with TM, unless I was formally told we had a coalition there is none. If there is one I'm backing out, and I remember proposing a coalition to CNP, CCPL and some other parties and it was rejected so again your chart was not right. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:14, September 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::::That is not the discussion here. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:59, September 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::Er, I thought I said that we had too many similar colors? That's another reason that Semyon's graph is superior to yours: it has more contrast. I'll leave the list of parties with their primary colors, though. Anyway, I strongly believe that Semyon's is better, and it appears that most people agree with me or only slightly disagree because of the labels, which I removed (but you reverted... again). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:56, September 11, 2013 (UTC) :::::They are the OFFICIAL colours of the parties! It doesn't matter how you feel, they are that. And nobody has agreed with you on the image! name one person, you're wrong Time simply wrong. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 06:39, September 11, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Nah, I think you're slightly more wrong Kunarian simply wrong. When the "official" (primary) color of the party is not used, the secondary color is used. For example, CDP's is an orange-yellow and CCPL's is teal. The secondary color is still somewhat official, it just isn't the primary color. Also, Semyon (and now 77topaz) has agreed that going by economic viewpoint is better. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:11, September 12, 2013 (UTC) :::::::No. Simple. We're using the official colours. Not Time throwing more tantrums. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 10:02, September 12, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::Haha, petty insults are irrelevant to the argument, and even if that wasn't one, your "tantrum" would be equivalent to mine. I was just defending the use of Semyon's correctly arranged graph. But, I guess if you really want to have too much red and blue, go ahead. :P As long as the parties are arranged correctly. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:02, September 12, 2013 (UTC) Btw, two other options include: 1. use the poll and decide. 2. make a graph that copies Semyon's graph by graphing by economic viewpoint (leftist, then liberal, then conservative, to be technical) while using the same colors as your color scheme using all primary colors (as in, the official, most used color of the party). —TimeMaster (talk • ) 02:09, September 11, 2013 (UTC) :Or we leave it as it is and should people say that parties should be aligned by political beliefs then I shall change it. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 06:39, September 11, 2013 (UTC) At the moment Kunarian's image is more useful for this particular infobox as the labels on Semyon's image don't work well at infobox scales, but the arrangement of parties on Semyon's image is still better. 77topaz (talk) 09:08, September 11, 2013 (UTC) Argh, why couldn't you protect it five minutes earlier, Oos? :( Topaz, I removed the labels on a separate image, but Kunarian reverted it. See the revision history of the current image being used for the page. Lastly, now that Semyon and topaz have both agreed that Semyon's arrangement is better, I expect a corrected version soon. Using the same colors as the current one is fine, just make sure it's arranged correctly. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:11, September 12, 2013 (UTC) (after seeing change) Alright, I'm willing to call it a deal now, though rotating by 180 degrees would be fine. :P —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:40, September 12, 2013 (UTC) Start date I think congress should be much older than 2003. We never had dictator-style royals Pierlot McCrooke 17:06, April 10, 2015 (UTC) :There was a different method before. A royal council with Governors of States being the main power brokers on them. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 18:55, April 10, 2015 (UTC) ::I think we should still reconsider 2003 as a start date. Maybe 1905? Pierlot McCrooke 15:33, April 15, 2015 (UTC) :::I don't think it's possible at this point. We already wrote a lot of history on this subject. --Semyon 15:34, April 15, 2015 (UTC) ::::Sjors wrote it prettily without consulting anyone Pierlot McCrooke 15:36, April 15, 2015 (UTC) :::::In fact, it was mainly me and Kun, and we discussed it quite extensively in the pub. --Semyon 15:49, April 15, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Maybe we can work out a compromise where congress is the lower house prior to 2003 Pierlot McCrooke 08:59, April 16, 2015 (UTC) I'm opposed to pre-2003 Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 10:31, April 16, 2015 (UTC) :@Pierlot: I am usually happy to compromise, but it just isn't possible in this case. --Semyon 11:28, April 16, 2015 (UTC) ::Well there were pages mentioning pre-2003 congressmen. That was before 2003 was established as ongress founding year Pierlot McCrooke 12:05, April 16, 2015 (UTC) :::Yes, but since Dimitri made the change, it has been too deeply integrated into the Lovian history to be reversed. I don't really see that it's a problem. It makes sense that a very small nation is slow to democratize. --Semyon 13:00, April 16, 2015 (UTC) ::::I really have to disagree with your last statement. Lovia has been a fairly well-off country over the past century and we should have long had a democratic tradition. Look at Belize; they are relatively poorer than us, have only been formally independent since 1981 and have had elections for a legislature since 1954. HORTON11: • 13:25, April 16, 2015 (UTC) :::::I didn't comment on the wealth of the nation, but its size. --Semyon 13:59, April 16, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Still, us being small should is not a good factor in stating why we were slow to democratize. Luxembourg is smaller than us and has been a democratic country since just after WWI. HORTON11: • 14:06, April 16, 2015 (UTC) We still don't have an undisputed area and Luxembourg is far larger than us in population. We had partial democracy via the Royal Legislative Council, this is good enough. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:45, April 16, 2015 (UTC) :We're significantly larger than Luxembourg though, and Semyon was basing his whole premise on the size. If we go by population, we can take Belize as the example, as they have a similar population. The point being, arguing that "Lovia did not democratize due to its small size" is not valid. We need to come up with a number of reasons doing so, which leads me to ask, how come we never had any protests or conflicts due to this. HORTON11: • 14:58, April 16, 2015 (UTC) No change to history. Besides we have established that we had State Elections and Governors who had most of the political power to decide on the unified vision for Lovia. Introducing Congress or any other national democratic process earlier on in Lovian history is not of benefit to us and it would require editing the history and for what? I've heard no logical argument other than "other nations had democracy". Well guess what? Lovia isn't other nations. We are not comparable to Belize or Luxembourg, both have histories much longer than Lovia's and both have political situations much different to Lovia's. Anyone who suggests this retrofitting of our history is unaware and uneducated about our history, so a quick lesson: Lovia did not have a national form of democracy because from the creation of a unified Lovia it was more of a confederation than a union as it is now. Democracy existed on a state level and local identities were stronger albeit less unified state by state than they are now. That's why you have parties in Seven that only operated in Seven, parties in Sylvania that only operated in Sylvania and parties in Oceana that only operated in Oceana and so on and so forth. We also had State Councils back in the day. So you ask then why we didn't form a national legislature? because the States wouldn't have allowed that, it was a precarious union to begin with anyways after the 1905 formation of the states and not everyone was happy. So the Governors would come together and provide the national political representation as part of the a council that tried to run the country in a somewhat unified fashion, filled also with experts from around the nation and of course, the King (the only other political power in the council). Any action on the Federal level only happened when all States where in perfect agreement, which was rare. These were on issues such as the military and democratic rights and they were only valid because they were signed by all the Governors and the King. It was economic hardship that brought the states closer, after almost starting a civil war though, in 1936 when Oceana, Kings and Clymene forced the King to create the Royal Legislative Council (made up of members appointed by Governors and the King as well as the Governors and the King) after Sylvania was seen to be using its size and economic power to benefit while the other states suffered. This body was not a legislative in the sense that the Congress is. We were still in times of the strong States, this was a body to create laws to settled quarrels between the states fairly. Queen Lucy, seeing a crisis looming in conflict between the states used the new body to slowly but surely restrict the powers of the states to work against other states. However the States found ways to benefit themselves, such as the Northern Lovian Union which was an economic agreement between Clymene, Seven and to a degree Kings whereby the areas within the Union benefited from unified trade and economic policy. The States continued to compete in such a manner until Gilbert T. Brand arrived on the scene. He did not go even half as far as he wanted in centralising Lovia but he managed to take some of the states' legislative power away and bring it to the Royal Legislative Council, which also began to experiment with being partially democratic (here is a precursor to the Congress with elections that you want). However centralisation was still far away, it was the Famine of 1955 that the new King Arthur III took advantage of and implemented reforms that cut the states down to size. This was only possible because of the timing of it, the Famine made people want a strong government to help them all and the State Governments seemed to have lost control. While they were reorganising, King Arthur struck. However in his early years also reduced the proportion of elected members from the Royal Legislative Council and fully exercised a veto over legislation. Also he reduced the Governors' powers in relation to the Royal Legislative Council, excluding them and making it so that they only appointed members rather than sat on the council. The King had taken Lovia to a much more centralise albeit authoritarian place. The King then appointed one member who would implement the first unified economic policy across the states. Biarn Sawyer. He was already well known and much supported by leftists and centrists for his revolutionary ideas. He worked with Governors to create an agreement about how to make Lovia and the States economies boom. In 1962 the appointed and elected members of the Royal Legislative Council supported his bill that created a position that would help manage the central command of the economy (a bit like a combination of the Ministers of Finance, Labour, Energy and Resources and Commerce). He went to work, encouraging more manufacturing and services. This stayed in place for 7 years before the political tides, whereby an alliance of Liberal and Conservative Governors appointed members that amended Sawyer's law so to reduce his control and return much economic control to the states while also refusing to support anything but reduced spending. The contrast between central policy and local policy combined with the sudden policy change caused an economic depression. But Lovia had tasted centralisation well enough. Eventually in 1981 Lovian had developed a more unified view of their nation after generations of unity and hardship together. This also helped lead to the Liberal Faction forming a new centralised economic policy. This continuation of unified policies shows that at this point the days of States forming unique tax rates and subsidies were by and large gone. While the Liberal Faction lost their control around 1986 they helped cement the idea of centralisation in the minds of Lovians. And in the 1990s the states were given back a lot of freedoms by the Liberal Faction remnants and their political allies. However this would not lead back to the days of old when States tried to operate as individual nations. Instead it would lead to the States operating within the model of a unified Lovia. And finally in 2001 a member of the old Liberal Faction, Rick Frances, proposed the idea of a democratically elected legislative. This idea was seen as overdue and after talks and discussion, the Council finalised the process and in 2003 abolished themselves while creating the Congress. There, ask questions, please do. But this should explain why we didn't have a Congress-like body prior to 2003. The history of Lovia is clear to people like me and Semyon, however I feel that we need to spread the newer and more realistic history through the website, particularly as many pages remain with the older less detailed and less thought out history of Dimitri's time. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 15:17, April 16, 2015 (UTC) :To summarize, I find it quite reasonable that a loose confederation of states, each with their own democracy, should not have had a directly elected congress until recently. In any case, Lovia has had a (albeit indirectly elected) democratic legislature since 1938. This information has been on the wiki for years now (I believe since 2010), and was added originally by Dimitri. Kun and I fleshed it out substantially, as Kun has described above, but the basic facts as stated above haven't changed. @Belize/Luxembourg: by size I was referring to population; if I'd meant area (which would have been silly) I would have explicitly stated it. I wasn't aware that Belize had a similar population to Lovia. --Semyon 15:43, April 16, 2015 (UTC)